MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569248634 · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000402

Airway Management With a Stereotactic Headframe In Situ—A Mannequin Study

2017· article· en· W2569248634 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Brockerville, Zoe Unger, Nathan C. Rowland, Francesco Sammartino, Pirjo Manninen, Lashmi Venkatraghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirway managementAirwayLaryngeal MasksLaryngeal mask airwayLaryngoscopyIntubationAnesthesiaLarynxSupraglottic airwayLaryngoscopesMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic headframe-based imaging is often needed for target localization during surgery for insertion of deep brain stimulators. A major concern during this surgery is the need for emergency airway management while an awake or sedated patient is in the stereotactic headframe. The aim of our study was to determine the ease of emergency airway management with a stereotactic headframe in situ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational study using a mannequin. A Leksell stereotactic headframe was placed on a mannequin in the operating room and the frame was fixed to the operating room table. Anesthesia personnel were asked to insert a #4 laryngeal mask and then to intubate the mannequin, using both direct (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL). In addition, participants were asked to perform the same airway techniques in the mannequin without the headframe. Data were analyzed for time taken for airway management using different devices with and without the headframe. In addition, we compared the time taken to secure the airway between different participant groups. RESULTS: Thirty anesthesia personnel (7 residents, 12 fellows, and 11 consultants) participated in the study. With the headframe in situ, 97% of participants were able to insert a laryngeal mask on their first attempt; 93% and 97% of participants were able to intubate the mannequin using DL and VL respectively on their first attempt. Without the stereotactic headframe, all participants were able to insert the laryngeal mask and intubate on the first attempt. The average time taken to insert a laryngeal mask and intubate the mannequin using DL and VL with the headframe in situ was 39.3, 58.6, and 54.8 seconds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that both laryngeal mask insertion and tracheal intubation can be performed with a stereotactic headframe in situ. A laryngeal mask is the quickest airway device to insert and can be inserted while the mannequin is in the standard surgical position. Further study is needed to validate the results in patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgical AnesthesiologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207